Many seem to be arguing here that 1) the internet is global, and 2) the UN is the closest thing we have to a global representative body, therefore 3) they should control the internet.
So many things wrong with that it is hard to know where to start.
To accept that argument one must ultimately accept the UN as the de facto world government. I am certainly not ready to do that.
To accept that argument is to choose to believe that the Chinese ambassador to the UN truly represents the interests of the Chinese people. I am certainly not ready to accept that. Ditto for Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan and any number of other nations.
To accept that argument is to submit to the inevitable end of the internet as we know it, because the temptation to try and solve other world problems by imposing taxes, fees, restrictions, etc. on the internet infrastructure will be more than the typical UN representative or beauracrat can bear. They will not be mere administrators of the internet they will be more akin to overlords.
On the plus side of the ledger, at least the UN peacekeepers could make their kiddie pr0n available more easily to their bosses who don't get out into the field.
Assume that offshore outsourcing is good overall because of the benefits often mentioned (lower costs for consumers and businesses, etc). Is that not also an argument for eliminating the protections and subsidies that many corporations enjoy that serve to drive up costs to consumers and businesses?
I would be interested to hear from the CEO's in particular, the answer to that question.
One wonders if the corporations will feel it in their best interests to release live distros into the wild, so to speak. Freely copied and shared. I suspect they would need to be carefully crafted to ensure no proprietary or confidential information is included on the cdrom's.
go back to defending ourselves with our bare hands. That then would allow us to engage in 'fair' and 'ethical' fights. So then, when China decides to ship 10 million or so soldiers over to the good old recently enlightened and de-armed US to assist us in our re-education, we can all feel very pious indeed, in knowing we fought 'fairly'. No point in ensuring that we have control over our way of life, as imperfect as it may be. Everyone has good intentions, right? No one would wish us ill were we pacifists, would they? We can reason with everyone, the pen is mightier than the sword. No one would deny my slashdot access... would they?
Slashdot Mirror
Many seem to be arguing here that 1) the internet is global, and 2) the UN is the closest thing we have to a global representative body, therefore 3) they should control the internet. So many things wrong with that it is hard to know where to start. To accept that argument one must ultimately accept the UN as the de facto world government. I am certainly not ready to do that. To accept that argument is to choose to believe that the Chinese ambassador to the UN truly represents the interests of the Chinese people. I am certainly not ready to accept that. Ditto for Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan and any number of other nations. To accept that argument is to submit to the inevitable end of the internet as we know it, because the temptation to try and solve other world problems by imposing taxes, fees, restrictions, etc. on the internet infrastructure will be more than the typical UN representative or beauracrat can bear. They will not be mere administrators of the internet they will be more akin to overlords. On the plus side of the ledger, at least the UN peacekeepers could make their kiddie pr0n available more easily to their bosses who don't get out into the field.
Assume that offshore outsourcing is good overall because of the benefits often mentioned (lower costs for consumers and businesses, etc). Is that not also an argument for eliminating the protections and subsidies that many corporations enjoy that serve to drive up costs to consumers and businesses? I would be interested to hear from the CEO's in particular, the answer to that question.
One wonders if the corporations will feel it in their best interests to release live distros into the wild, so to speak. Freely copied and shared. I suspect they would need to be carefully crafted to ensure no proprietary or confidential information is included on the cdrom's.
go back to defending ourselves with our bare hands. That then would allow us to engage in 'fair' and 'ethical' fights. So then, when China decides to ship 10 million or so soldiers over to the good old recently enlightened and de-armed US to assist us in our re-education, we can all feel very pious indeed, in knowing we fought 'fairly'. No point in ensuring that we have control over our way of life, as imperfect as it may be. Everyone has good intentions, right? No one would wish us ill were we pacifists, would they? We can reason with everyone, the pen is mightier than the sword. No one would deny my slashdot access ... would they?